Are the Turtles still aliens?

[drewizzle88]

Link to the script posted in another thread for those who haven't read it and wish to...

http://www.mediafire.com/view/?fbshx0svrpe7efe#

I liked most of it at the first, apart from calling military soldiers the foot, it seemed exciting and action packed although I imagined way too many Michael Bay explosions. Then it got really bad to me when we were told Schrader was alien Shredder and had blades coming out of his skin. I thought the battle at the lair with splinter and beebop and rocksteady sounded entertaining. But then again it got worse, the turtles were in Dimension X with other turtles and also were told they were aliens. The ending was even more awful with each turtle going their own way with the orbs to find their trainees...at least Casey was still a hockey player and not a volleyball player now.

[chrisdude]

I read the leaked script from start to finish.

I guess I feel like TMNT has had more interpretations than darn near anything. At what point is it okay to think outside the box?

The Amazing Spider-Man changed a lot, but I still feel like it was the best Spider-Man movie. I feel like TMNT has seen enough interpretations, that we can wild out, at this point.

If not now, how many faithful interpretations do you need? Or does a wildly different idea NEVER deserve to exist?

[Zulithe]

I guess I just don't see WHY it would need to be so radically different. Was Transformers really that radically different from the past show and comics? We just need a strong story that introduces the turtles to a new generation, that's it. It doesn't have to reinvent everything especially when those choices could backfire, the traditional story has already proven itself to be strong.

I'm sure they will have their own twists and added elements that make it fresh and new. I just hope some of their choices are not as extreme as seen in this early script.

What I do like about the script is it features a 'young' april and casey, I think april works better as a character similarly aged to the turtles. Besides, April's being older and being a news reporter was never a big benefit to the turtles, so why does it matter if she's really a reporter yet or not? So here is an example of a change from earlier versions that I think works. Changing a character's age isn't a breaking thing most of the times, especially if it's only by this much.

[Plasticplayhouse]

Originally Posted by chrisdude

I don't think it's less reasonable than a ninja clan in present day America.

and therein lies the key to all of Hollywood's F' ups when making movies based from books. the story of the turtles does contain ninja clans in modern day america. is it realistic? not really, but neither are talking turtles that know how to meditate and kick ass. when will Hollywood learn that fans dont want "reasonable", we want the story that we know, the way we know it.

so many directors/producers are so concerned about making it "believable/relatable" that they abandon much of what makes up the source material in the first place. if a franchise is already very successful, why on earth would you want to change anything! there is no need to "recreate/reimagine/upgrade" any of the base story or characters. that is the whole reason why fans love the property in the first place.

it's quite simple. if you are producing/directing a movie that is based from an already very successful property, you are basically being handed success on an silver platter. simply translate it in honesty without adding any or your own tweaks, plots, characters, or designs and it WILL be a success.

some examples:
the hunger games: director made too many modifications to the original story. on the special features, he admitted that he fabricated parts of script himself because he thought it would "add" to the movie.

the last airbender: shamalan really f'd this one up when he added his own elements to the story and characters.

why must these producers/directors feel the need to "put their fingerprint on it"? you don't need to TOUCH anything! we don't want YOUR side of the story, we only want to see it how it's suppose to be.

[CyberCubed]

It makes no sense either. Nick will want kids watching the cartoon to see this movie, just like fans of the original toon saw Movie 1 and 2 in theaters.

Why would they make the movie so drastically different than the cartoon kids are growing up with?

[The Stryker]

Originally Posted by Plasticplayhouse

and therein lies the key to all of Hollywood's F' ups when making movies based from books. the story of the turtles does contain ninja clans in modern day america. is it realistic? not really, but neither are talking turtles that know how to meditate and kick ass. when will Hollywood learn that fans dont want "reasonable", we want the story that we know, the way we know it.

so many directors/producers are so concerned about making it "believable/relatable" that they abandon much of what makes up the source material in the first place. if a franchise is already very successful, why on earth would you want to change anything! there is no need to "recreate/reimagine/upgrade" any of the base story or characters. that is the whole reason why fans love the property in the first place.

it's quite simple. if you are producing/directing a movie that is based from an already very successful property, you are basically being handed success on an silver platter. simply translate it in honesty without adding any or your own tweaks, plots, characters, or designs and it WILL be a success.

some examples:
the hunger games: director made too many modifications to the original story. on the special features, he admitted that he fabricated parts of script himself because he thought it would "add" to the movie.

the last airbender: shamalan really f'd this one up when he added his own elements to the story and characters.

why must these producers/directors feel the need to "put their fingerprint on it"? you don't need to TOUCH anything! we don't want YOUR side of the story, we only want to see it how it's suppose to be.

This whole thing reeks of 'I'm scared of change and any sort of new idea."

Sometimes the changes people make can be awful but to say that any change to the source material makes it bad is more than alittle stupid. Some comics and cartoons NEED to be modified to make sense and work as a film. It just takes talented writers to shape it.

Hell, look at the Nolan Batman movies. They changed character origins, looks and motivations all over the place and they made money. The Avengers series is the same deal.

[Plasticplayhouse]

Originally Posted by The Stryker

This whole thing reeks of 'I'm scared of change and any sort of new idea."

Sometimes the changes people make can be awful but to say that any change to the source material makes it bad is more than alittle stupid. Some comics and cartoons NEED to be modified to make sense and work as a film. It just takes talented writers to shape it.

Hell, look at the Nolan Batman movies. They changed character origins, looks and motivations all over the place and they made money. The Avengers series is the same deal.

i agree about the nolan batman; good point, but the good revamps are in the minority. the thing is, when i pay to watch a movie about a book that i am a big fan of, i want it to follow the book so can ejoy the big screen adaptation of it just as much as i enjoyed the book.

if i want to listen to the red hot chili peppers, i would attend one of their concerts, not that of a cover band.

[chrisdude]

Originally Posted by Plasticplayhouse

and therein lies the key to all of Hollywood's F' ups when making movies based from books. the story of the turtles does contain ninja clans in modern day america. is it realistic? not really, but neither are talking turtles that know how to meditate and kick ass. when will Hollywood learn that fans dont want "reasonable", we want the story that we know, the way we know it.

so many directors/producers are so concerned about making it "believable/relatable" that they abandon much of what makes up the source material in the first place. if a franchise is already very successful, why on earth would you want to change anything! there is no need to "recreate/reimagine/upgrade" any of the base story or characters. that is the whole reason why fans love the property in the first place.

it's quite simple. if you are producing/directing a movie that is based from an already very successful property, you are basically being handed success on an silver platter. simply translate it in honesty without adding any or your own tweaks, plots, characters, or designs and it WILL be a success.

some examples:
the hunger games: director made too many modifications to the original story. on the special features, he admitted that he fabricated parts of script himself because he thought it would "add" to the movie.

the last airbender: shamalan really f'd this one up when he added his own elements to the story and characters.

why must these producers/directors feel the need to "put their fingerprint on it"? you don't need to TOUCH anything! we don't want YOUR side of the story, we only want to see it how it's suppose to be.

Every version of TMNT since the first has been different. I mean, look at how much the original cartoon changed from the Mirage comics.

Why should an adaptation be exactly the same, instead of maybe making changes that make for a good movie? I don't know about The Hunger Games or The Last Airbender, but those are just new versions of something you still have. The original versions of everything already exists, in all its purity.

Staying faithful to what made the original thing work is a good idea. But that's been done, over and over, with TMNT. I just feel like, at some point, it's okay to start thinking outside of the box

[The Stryker]

Originally Posted by Plasticplayhouse

i agree about the nolan batman; good point, but the good revamps are in the minority. the thing is, when i pay to watch a movie about a book that i am a big fan of, i want it to follow the book so can ejoy the big screen adaptation of it just as much as i enjoyed the book.

if i want to listen to the red hot chili peppers, i would attend one of their concerts, not that of a cover band.

And I think that's boring and alittle unrealistic. Just LOOK some of the stuff that goes on in comics and tell me it would work in a movie with no changes whatsoever.

If I want to see a perfect comic accurate interpretation of a character or story....I'll read the comic. Done. It seems pretty redundant to do the EXACT same thing for a movie that should be a bigger thing than 'Its what you already read, only it costs a billion dollars more and you pay 10 bucks to see it'.

[chrisdude]

Has anything been revamped and loved in more incarnations than Batman?

[The Stryker]

I wouldn't say I love the Nolan interpretation (In fact I'd say Rises was pretty bad. The changes were the least of it's issues though)

But yeah. Batman's been changed a ton of times and he's doing just fine.

[Candy Kappa]

I don't see the Zur-En-Arrh Batman get any movie soon

[Xav]

Originally Posted by Zulithe

Ciro broke it down perfectly himself on his last comic con panel. The core elements of TMNT shared across all iterations: mutants, dimension x, ninjas and brotherhood. If any of those are missing, it's not TMNT anymore.

I disagree on the Dimension X thing though, that's really only a Fred Wolf/Archie thing. It wasn't in the Mirage comics, movies, or 4Kids series, and I think they still count as TMNT.

Originally Posted by The Stryker

Hell, look at the Nolan Batman movies. They changed character origins, looks and motivations all over the place and they made money. The Avengers series is the same deal.

The difference is he was still Bruce Wayne billionaire playboy, who parents were killed and decided to dress up as a Bat and fight crime. He wasn't some poor super powered alien from another planet whose parents never died.

[CyberCubed]

Originally Posted by Xav

I disagree on the Dimension X thing though, that's really only a Fred Wolf/Archie thing.

Dimension X will be in the Nick cartoon too though.

[chrisdude]

I have to disagree with the sentiment, in general. I just don't believe changing the origin necessarily changes who the turtles are. I think it's important that they grow up on Earth. That would change who they are. But the turtles are who they are before they even know where they came from.

[Jephael]

Originally Posted by chrisdude

II think it's important that they grow up on Earth. That would change who they are. But the turtles are who they are before they even know where they came from.

Just like a certain farmboy who grows up to be the Man of Steel!

[Xav]

I think the big problem is the turtles aren't accidental heroes anymore they are the "chosen ones", and they are no longer alone in the universe, now there is a whole freaking planet of them.

[The Stryker]

Originally Posted by Jephael

Just like a certain farmboy who grows up to be the Man of Steel!

[Jester]

Originally Posted by The Stryker

Spoiler:

Nothing like using an Elseworld story to prove your point. It's an intentional reworking of the standard Man of Steel mythos. That's the whole point of Elseworlds. It's not mainline Superman, and they'd never base a blockbuster/franchise on a one-off story like that.

[The Stryker]

Originally Posted by Jester

Nothing like using an Elseworld story to prove your point.

You mean the story that's whole point was that Superman was a good natured soul no matter where he was raised? Or who he was raised by? Yeah I think it fits a bit. Just saying some parts are not as essential as fans force themselves to believe.

If THAT radical a change can still get the point across. Making the turtles origins trace back to another dimension won't change the characters at all if they're still raised in the 'real world'.